memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Aholland
--Alan del Beccio 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) New Articles When writing new articles, especially those based on real world people, places or events, please limit the "real world" information to the bare minimum, but especially write it in terms of how it was referenced in Star Trek, being sure to cite your sources and so forth. I suggest that you may wish to check out some of the links posted above in your welcome message. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 04:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *Greetings! Please make sure to read Memory Alpha:Manual of Style, some of the articles you have created are not formatted correctly. Thanks! - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Khan Article I'll accept a little credit for your compliments on the Khan article here. I'm rather pleased with the rewrite I started, but it only worked as well as it did because it's the single best (self-contained) story in Trek, I think. It was an easy job. (But fun). Not so easy was my attempt to tackle the Human history article. That's the first article (after an attempt to summarize ST:TMP) that made me throw my hands up in defeat. I noticed you're giving it a whirl, and I wish you luck. I'll poke my nose in later -- maybe I can agitate a little help, like you did with Khan this morning! --Aurelius Kirk 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :*Feel free! I think you have an excellent writing style and good grasp of the material and point of view. I first wanted to chuck Human history out entirely, not quite seeing the need. I was talked out of that, and encouraged, instead, to fix the problems I saw. I'm actually rather pleased with the result, but please let me know if there are structural or informational problems with it. Aholland 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Proposed Canon Policy Howdy. At first glance through your proposal, I noticed what I think is a minor error: (e.g., Frakes in “All Good Things” and Frakes in “The Pegasus”). I think you meant ENT: "These Are the Voyages..." rather than TNG: "All Good Things". I haven't digested the rest, but I will. It looks comprehensive and useful. --Aurelius Kirk 08:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC) *Thanks! You are right - that is exactly what I meant. Aholland 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :I'm not exactly sure whether to put that here or on the Canon policy talk page, but this can be moved later, if necessary. Anyway, while most of the suggestion looks good, I still see some problems with the details, including but not restricted to: :*Subsection "Episodes": Articles should not be created for subjects that don't appear in any Episode. - "appearing" would need to be defined. Perhaps rephrase this to refer to the later section about "valid resources". :*Subsection "Valid resources": Closed-captioned dialogue - CC is often done independently of the original production and has turned out as being completely wrong several times already. As it only "helps" with understanding the spoken dialogue (1) anyway, I suggest completely removing this, or if deemed necessary, move it to the "Restricted validity" section (but after the episode scripts). :*Subsection "Restricted Validity Resources": style description in the introductory paragraph - ways to format background information are (or should be) mentioned somewhere else, it might be better to just link to that part of our Manual of Style instead of repeating it here. :*Subsection "Non-canon Resources": Again, suggest to refer to the Manual of Style. Is the "Apocrypha" section that is often used mentioned there, somewhere? If not, it probably should... :*Subsection "Conflicts in Valid Resources": This describes a departure from existing, though inofficial, behaviour and is the main reason for my dislike of the suggested "levels of validity". So far, when two equally valid resources (=both from an aired episode, whether spoken or just shown) contradict each other, we tried to simply make note of that contradiction, but otherwise still treat both as "valid". What is described here is some way of "picking&choosing" one resource over the other, AKA "creating real canon". This should not be done. :*Subsection "Demotion of Valid Resources": obvious jokes - would need to be defined more clearly. "Anime references" do not necessarily make a resource invalid (we even have Nausicaans), there are several articles for production staff guys appearing on some list already, etc. Points 2 and 3 - production errors of any kind could better be moved to section "Tolerance in ...", I think. :*Subsection "Demotion of Scenes or Episodes": in extraordinary circumstances ... it can be noted ... as potentially invalid information. - No. No episode or scene should ever be considered "invalid information". : -- Cid Highwind 13:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :*Thanks; I've incorporated your ideas (I think), with one sort-of exception that I've noted as italics in the draft. Take a look and let me know your thoughts. Aholland 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :Your example there is a constructed one, of course, but it nicely shows the problem arising from such levels of validity. If one resource states that "the screen is blue" and another one states that "the screen is red", why should we prefer one over the other, and can there even be a defined "order of importance" in all cases? :If a red screen can be seen throughout the episode and it is mentioned as being blue only once, we should probably go with "red". If there's talk about it being blue all the time and we only see it once, it should perhaps be "blue". If it is an important plot point that the screen is green, we should use that and not the other colors. On the other hand, if something is that convoluted, it might be best not to pick any of the possibilities, but to just state the fact that "a screen exists", and move all those conflicting descriptions to a background note... ;) -- Cid Highwind 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)